For the second quarter, you will be responsible for choosing 2 (CP) or 3 (Honors) independent reading books that focus on ONE of the seven major topics for dystopian literature. All of the books you choose must focus on the same topic. Essentially, you are adopting the topic for the remainder of the year, including as a focus for your research paper.
Read over the Phase Two handout below to get a clearer idea of what this project entails:
For today, choose at least one book for your independent reading. Once you choose it and check it out, create a new page on your wikispace called "Reading Schedule"; then create a table on that page that represents a tentative reading schedule from now until December 08, which is the first major due date. If you are enrolled in CP for the course, you need to have one book finished and six posts. If you are enrolled in Honors, you must be done with one book and at least half way through a second book, and nine posts will be due that day. Next week, we will begin learning how to create an appropriate analysis post.
Example: If I am in Honors, and my book is 224 pages long, I want to be finished in four weeks. Per week, I should read approximately 46 pages to finish on time. I would allow extra time towards the end, so I would probably up my goal to 60 pages per week. You can complete any post early, so if you finish the book in a week flat, create all the posts as soon as possible, and you'll be free of the task!
The first book of my independent study is Alif the Unseen by G. Willow Wilson, and it promises to be an original story that addresses some common concerns in modern society. The story follows a hacker who apparently uses his skills to help others remove traces of "illegal" activities online in the surveillance state in which they live. Alif, his hacker handle, must hide from the person or program that has found him out, seeking the help of an ancient tome and a genie, as well as from a couple of friends. From the general description, the author seems to address the issue of privacy in an age of technology, and the dangers of living in a government with the power to monitor its citizens and thereby exert too much or unfair control over them.
The article above, entitled "Minimal Minimization? More Concerns About Surveillance," deals with an issue of privacy with roots entrenched not only in the recent event of a government whistle blower, Edward Snowden, revealing the invasive spying of the government upon US citizens as well as other global targets, but stemming back to tragic events of 9/11 and the desperate attempts to quell terrorism on US soil. The author, H.L. Pohlman, "a professor of political science at Dickinson College" discusses the complicated language used in a newly proposed bill to limit the government's power to search, use, and disseminate information from people's smart phones. Immediately, the article raises the essential questions of the course, How do we use language and images to manipulate the minds of others? The very reason the author writes about the topic is because of the deceiving, circuitous language that leaves loopholes, which "more or less [swallow] up the prohibition"; in other words, the very protection the bill offers is negated by its language. Essentially, the entire bill then would only service to assuage people's perceptions that the government is watching them without actually stopping the invasion of privacy.
When the Founding Father's fashioned the constitution, they had no idea of the technological advances the future would offer. Smart phones--any phones, for that matter--were not on their radar (if they would've had any). Citizens of the United States now pride themselves on the freedoms and protection offered by this civic document, which has led to the rise of this great nation. By extension, it's safe to assert that no one wants to see harm come to members of this country in the likes of a terrorist act, such as 9/11. In order to protect the innocent people who truly love their country and are trying to honor the ethical code created to govern our land, many citizens have been willing to give up a little bit of freedom to search out those who threaten it all. This is the slippery slope the NSA has capitalized upon with its spying program. According to the article, "the USA Freedom Act...is designed to rein in government surveillance" because there are currently no rules about what the NSA can do with all of the tons of information it collects about people. If someone is wanted for a crime, for example, technically speaking, the police or FBI can ask for information obtained from smart phones. To be more specific to the NSA, if they unwittingly detect a crime of another nature, having nothing to do with terrorism, they can presumably, legally act upon it. Is that ethical? No one wants crime, but what is the underlying cost of eradicating it through these methods?
Senator Patrick Leahy initially seems like a good guy, trying to prevent the degradation of individual freedoms, but upon closer examination of the language in the bill to "minimize procedures", it becomes clear that "we have no idea whether the minimization procedures mandated by Leahy's bill are as stringent as the procedures" that already exist. Throughout the article, Pohlman dismantles the language and juxtaposes it to its reported intent, pointing out some disturbing discrepancies. All of the information begs the question, how far should we go in the name of safety and stability? Over and over in dystopian texts, communities are formed on good intentions, to give people the safety and security everyone inherently deserves, but often times, it's impossible to really do so while maintaining personal freedoms.
I certainly don't have the answers, but one thing seems clear: Life is messy, and the more we try to clean it up, the bigger the problem gets.
Sources:
Pohlman, H. L. "Minimal Minimization? More Concerns About Surveillance."
//washingtonpost.com//. The Washington Post, 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.
For the second quarter, you will be responsible for choosing 2 (CP) or 3 (Honors) independent reading books that focus on ONE of the seven major topics for dystopian literature. All of the books you choose must focus on the same topic. Essentially, you are adopting the topic for the remainder of the year, including as a focus for your research paper.
Read over the Phase Two handout below to get a clearer idea of what this project entails:
For today, choose at least one book for your independent reading. Once you choose it and check it out, create a new page on your wikispace called "Reading Schedule"; then create a table on that page that represents a tentative reading schedule from now until December 08, which is the first major due date. If you are enrolled in CP for the course, you need to have one book finished and six posts. If you are enrolled in Honors, you must be done with one book and at least half way through a second book, and nine posts will be due that day. Next week, we will begin learning how to create an appropriate analysis post.
Example: If I am in Honors, and my book is 224 pages long, I want to be finished in four weeks. Per week, I should read approximately 46 pages to finish on time. I would allow extra time towards the end, so I would probably up my goal to 60 pages per week. You can complete any post early, so if you finish the book in a week flat, create all the posts as soon as possible, and you'll be free of the task!
Sample Post for Introduction
Check out this Alif the Unseen Glog by Ms. Alexis
The first book of my independent study is Alif the Unseen by G. Willow Wilson, and it promises to be an original story that addresses some common concerns in modern society. The story follows a hacker who apparently uses his skills to help others remove traces of "illegal" activities online in the surveillance state in which they live. Alif, his hacker handle, must hide from the person or program that has found him out, seeking the help of an ancient tome and a genie, as well as from a couple of friends. From the general description, the author seems to address the issue of privacy in an age of technology, and the dangers of living in a government with the power to monitor its citizens and thereby exert too much or unfair control over them.
Article on Surveillance in the United States 2014
The article above, entitled "Minimal Minimization? More Concerns About Surveillance," deals with an issue of privacy with roots entrenched not only in the recent event of a government whistle blower, Edward Snowden, revealing the invasive spying of the government upon US citizens as well as other global targets, but stemming back to tragic events of 9/11 and the desperate attempts to quell terrorism on US soil. The author, H.L. Pohlman, "a professor of political science at Dickinson College" discusses the complicated language used in a newly proposed bill to limit the government's power to search, use, and disseminate information from people's smart phones. Immediately, the article raises the essential questions of the course, How do we use language and images to manipulate the minds of others? The very reason the author writes about the topic is because of the deceiving, circuitous language that leaves loopholes, which "more or less [swallow] up the prohibition"; in other words, the very protection the bill offers is negated by its language. Essentially, the entire bill then would only service to assuage people's perceptions that the government is watching them without actually stopping the invasion of privacy.
When the Founding Father's fashioned the constitution, they had no idea of the technological advances the future would offer. Smart phones--any phones, for that matter--were not on their radar (if they would've had any). Citizens of the United States now pride themselves on the freedoms and protection offered by this civic document, which has led to the rise of this great nation. By extension, it's safe to assert that no one wants to see harm come to members of this country in the likes of a terrorist act, such as 9/11. In order to protect the innocent people who truly love their country and are trying to honor the ethical code created to govern our land, many citizens have been willing to give up a little bit of freedom to search out those who threaten it all. This is the slippery slope the NSA has capitalized upon with its spying program. According to the article, "the USA Freedom Act...is designed to rein in government surveillance" because there are currently no rules about what the NSA can do with all of the tons of information it collects about people. If someone is wanted for a crime, for example, technically speaking, the police or FBI can ask for information obtained from smart phones. To be more specific to the NSA, if they unwittingly detect a crime of another nature, having nothing to do with terrorism, they can presumably, legally act upon it. Is that ethical? No one wants crime, but what is the underlying cost of eradicating it through these methods?
Senator Patrick Leahy initially seems like a good guy, trying to prevent the degradation of individual freedoms, but upon closer examination of the language in the bill to "minimize procedures", it becomes clear that "we have no idea whether the minimization procedures mandated by Leahy's bill are as stringent as the procedures" that already exist. Throughout the article, Pohlman dismantles the language and juxtaposes it to its reported intent, pointing out some disturbing discrepancies. All of the information begs the question, how far should we go in the name of safety and stability? Over and over in dystopian texts, communities are formed on good intentions, to give people the safety and security everyone inherently deserves, but often times, it's impossible to really do so while maintaining personal freedoms.
I certainly don't have the answers, but one thing seems clear: Life is messy, and the more we try to clean it up, the bigger the problem gets.
Sources:
Pohlman, H. L. "Minimal Minimization? More Concerns About Surveillance." //washingtonpost.com//. The Washington Post, 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.